Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

see what it's like. I normally watch the city council meetings that way. Oh, yeah. I just I know we're on it. So, what's that? No, I do like it.

I work on Sorry. [Music] We're good. All right. Thank you. We'd like to welcome everyone out to our Tuesday, September 23rd, 2025 planning commission meeting. Um, and we have all of the commissioners here with the exception of Commissioner Hilton. And now on our agenda is the opportunity for public comment. But seeing that we don't have any members of the public uh present, we will proceed to our next uh item on the agenda, our presentation and reports. So, Mr. Cooper, please.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I'll just share again what I shared upstairs in our uh work meeting. Uh, just a reminder, you all have on your calendar an invitation to join us for the Honeybaked TAM kind of regrand opening 2.0, I guess, October 4th, 12:00. Uh, it'll be the the typical ribbon cutting with the mayor and the big scissors and things. And so, that'll be great. Um, everything that you're aware of going on in the city is progressing well. We did have a um an unfortunate shutdown of the river of the uh I-15 north onramp on Saturday. Uh we learned from UD do that that was an unplanned unscheduled shutdown due to the ineffectiveness of the merge uh that they had built there. And so um that was of necessity but unfortunately nothing we could have done about it. We didn't even know about it until it got backed up insanely. Uh Trader Joe's is progressing well. We hope to see them uh have a ribbon cutting here in the next month or so. So, that'll be fun. Won't don't miss that. Um Mr. Sniderman's here from AFCU. So, uh amongst other things we'll be talking about tonight, he can share any progress on um the AFCU project, especially the hillside. That's turning out really well. I sent you some information via email this week so that for some of the of you that were new, you can see what was approved versus what's getting built. It's very consistent. Um, and the landscaping is going to make that just pop. So, very good job there. Um, and that's the highlights.

All right, thank you for that report. Um, next we would have our consent items which would be the consideration for meeting minutes from August 25th. Am I reading? They get my eyeballs on. August 26th for both the work session and the regular meeting and September 9th for the our work session. Commissioners, any corrections or amendments to those minutes? If none a motion would be in order, please. I'll make a motion to approve the consent consent items as listed. Okay. Second. So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Yes. Yes.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next is item E on our agenda action items which our first one will be consideration to approve a conditional use permit for an electronic sign to be located on phase 1 parking structure at approximately 4648 South 1500 West in Riverdale, Utah is requested by America First Credit Union. So Mr. Cooper, what do you have for us on that? I have a presentation and um the smart person uh is with us today, Mr. Tim Snyderman. So, he'll be able to answer any specific questions um and resolve any concerns that might come up. Uh I've I decided that given um some of you that are new, we've we've gone over this project for many many um years and many different iterations. So, I thought I would give a little bit of a background for those of you who are new. So, those of you that have seen this 10 times, please forgive me. Um, but I think it's important. So, this is the area in which uh America First is developing. This is um called the West Bench area. Uh they do have existing buildings here. I'll show that in a minute. Um but there has been many things that have happened on this site to prepare it for the development that's happening now as well as development that will happen in the future. I've listed some of those previous actions. Uh there's been street vacations and a subdivision with an amendment. They've actually built their operation building. Um they're in the process of reconstructing 1500 West with the new roundabout. Uh unfortunately the bridge issue kind of put a damper on that, but that's all going to be amazing soon. Um they have received other approvals, uh conditional approvals for additional signage. We talked about that in the work meeting. There's an electronic sign on the I-15 side. um on the west side of their ops building that received

conditional approval previous to this meeting. Um and they're, as I mentioned earlier, they're working on the hillside plan. So, they're doing a massive amount of work um on this site. That's kind of a recent aerial picture. I'm sorry the 3D buildings didn't pop up and come to life, but you can see that lower section is really where they're focusing. Um that part to the right over by the the interchange there is the hillside. Their existing building there is the uh the semicircle kind of building or the parenthesy I guess it is. What do you guys call it? Building three. Building three. Okay.

Yeah, that's exciting. It's a parenthesy. The parenthetical building. Um and uh so they're they're doing all kinds of things. Uh the roundabouts up there in the top left. Their ops building is up in the far corner there. So, uh, lots of things happening. This is a plan that we've used repetitively to show kind of the vision of the full campus. If you kind of go back and you look at the area that goes all the way up to uh, 1500 and and uh, really uh, 4,400 there at the at the roundabouts, that's kind of at the top of this picture here in the pinkish salmon color. So you can kind of see the vision that they have. Um down at the bottom is the parking structure that we're talking about. I'll show a better picture here in a second. This is a top- down view of that same plan. And so phase one I is the collection of buildings and the parking structures there towards um that says Redwood, but that's it's not Redwood, it's Riverdale Road. Um I need to use the updated version, I guess, don't I? Uh here's what that looks like in illustri. So you can see the interchange there. Um the parenthetical building is no longer there because this is showing the five new buildings that they project to build in phase one with the two parking structures, one of which the eastern one is under construction right now. The Maverick's there down at the bottom. Um and you can see 1500 going up to the new roundabout. Tesla is over to the left and the office buildings and the motel is there to the left. Any questions on orientation or what we're looking at? Okay, great. Here's a blown blown up view there. And so I've actually highlighted the parking structure number one that's under construction today and the location of the proposed sign um

that we're discussing tonight. Just right there on that corner. Building three is one that already exists, right? Yep. That's the curvy building, right?

Building A is also under construction. So, they're building building A and parking structure number one uh concurrently, and that's going to be um the first part of their first phase. So, what is a digital display? Well, a digital display is an electronic sign. And an electronic sign is um a sign that electronically illuminates um that it has LEDs or other forms of uh light emmitting um technology and it can uh be static. It can be moving um but it's it's a separate sign type in our code but it it still is considered a business sign. So there's there's a type and then there's um the the defined use. And again, that blue box represents the location of where it's going. Here's um a little bit more of a detailed view of what the sign looks like. So, you'll see that the large sign side uh which faces more kind of south on the building um is a little bit bigger than the east side which u is wrapping around on that corner. And so together they equal about 750 square feet, which is 150 square feet bigger than what a business sign is allowed to be. Something that's important in terms of um my review and my recommendation to you would be the scale of not just the parking structure that it's mounted to there shown in the blue box again, but the fact that both of those parking structures will eventually be connected and will look as if they are one building. There is a space there because they'll be

it's just where the ramps are. Yeah, that it'll it's separate construction over time, but it will have the appearance from from any road that you come up as being a a massive structure. And so even though um the proposed sign does exceed the the maximum allowable square footage of a business sign which is 600 square f feet um my feeling is that if you're on Riverdale Road or you're on I-15 or I 84 you may see it but it will be um the aspect ratio of the sign in relationship to the building I think will be in good taste. Oops. And so, um, my recommendation to you all, um, before you maybe get Tim up and ask some specific questions would be that you approve the conditional use permit under a couple of conditions. Um, number one, that on this parking structure, uh, one, which is really one and two, that this is really the only business sign that can exist and that would, um, max out that total allowance. Um, number two would be the, uh, requirement of a sign permit. So we this does not preclude any decision you do tonight does not preclude their um need to apply for a sign permit. So we would do an additional review of the actual specifics of the sign, the mounting um all of that kind of thing. And so they would be required to do that. And then we haven't talked about this much but I wanted to make sure that it was brought up in in this meeting that because of the proximity of the campus to the airport. Um there is some times consideration that the FAA has to give. Um I didn't know if it was given or if it's even needed. I do know that the airport had questions about illumination on their existing sign before I mentioned that they took care of it. Um, usually the FAA re related to the airport is worried about height and it's already on an a building that's been

approved for its height. So, I didn't see a need for it. We shouldn't. We're actually outside of that cone. Oh, great. This ends up being plus where it's already on a building that already has the FA approval change.

So, I just wanted to put that there um just in case I was missing something. So that would be a um that would be one of our conditions, but it doesn't sound like it would be material. And so as you um discuss this further, you have three options as I mentioned. Um a motion to approve uh as as um described to you and there's some motion language for that, a motion to deny or a motion to table. So that's my presentation. I'd welcome any questions for me or we can invite Mr. Sniderman up to discuss any questions you might have. Okay, commissioners, any questions for Mr. Cooper?

If not, Mr. Schneiderman, we'd like to have you step forward if you would please, so we could ask some questions. If you'd introduce yourself and your city of residence, I will. My name is Tim Snyderman. I'm with America First Credit Union. I'm the director of construction there um here in Riverdale. Um I reside in Tilla. It's a long trip. Yeah, some days especially some days. Any questions, commissioners? How far back are you anticipating people being able to read what's ever on your sign like off of Riverdale Road?

Well, we want people on Riverdale Road to be able to see it and read it. Um, so that's part of the aspect ratio of it. um going beyond Riverdale Road. I mean, we we're actually quite a bit back from Riverdale Road, even where the parking structure is. Um so, I I mean, I imagine you'll be able to see it to actually be able to read it. Um probably not much farther off Riverdale or I 84 where you'd be able to actually read the sign. What is the actual purpose that you're going to put on the sign? What are the things you're going to use it for? Um same as what are similar to our sign that's on 1500 West. It'll advertise, you know, the same things, our rates, our our uh Okay.

just advertisement for the build the business. Yeah.

Um, one of the things that Brandon didn't mention is that in front of the parking structure right there next to Maverick, our intent is to build a a branch. So, this also becomes kind of dual there for the branch and for um our corporation as a whole. I've got a question as far as illumination. Um, on different devices that I have, you can set it to auto adjust for brightness. I mean, if I'm in a bright environment, it'll pop brighter so that I can see it. If I'm in a dark environment, it tones it down. Does it have that feature? And is that automatic on that sign?

Um, not usually automatic. Not that we can't look into a device to do that. What we've done on the Simon 1500 West um is we've we've got it programmed on a um it's called a universal clock, so it adjusts to uh dawn and dusk and we actually dim at night um so that it's not as bad for traffic on I-15. Um when we first put it up, we had a couple comments so we've adjusted that dimness down on that sign. We do the same on this one. Um, in addition, we don't put any white backgrounds on any of the slides that appear so that it doesn't create as much glare or illumination that could be, you know.

So, do you have any data as far as, you know, you say you tone it down percentage- wise? Is it down 20%, 25%? Any idea? Prepared to tell you exactly what that dimness is other than that we we took it down several levels so that it wasn't as as glaring. I'm I'm happy to get back to you with what that is, but um it's definitely significantly decreased at night. Does it dim down and brighten up based on sunlight? No, on time. So, it's on a universal clock that um adjusts to dusk and dawn automatically. So, it follows the time of dusk and dawn. So, that's a fluid.

Yeah. which you know in most of our locations for parking lot lights and other things we set them to a similar the same way. Okay, that was one of the concerns that I had was that that sign is going to be large enough that even up your up behind the college, you're going to be able to see that thing, you know, pulsing and at night wouldn't be so much during the day. But my my concern was that some of our citizens might consider it to be intrusive to their view. And so how bright it is um might create some some concern with the citizens. So um I'd be interested in in seeing what what could be done to mitigate that. So that after a certain hour,

what we found out there on 1500 West for the for the freeway was a significant um decrease in comments from the sign when we took off a white background and then we adjusted the dimness at night so that it didn't glare. Um and since we've done that, I'm not aware of any more issues or Brandon, you haven't received any either since we did that, right? Thank you.

Yeah. From the freeway traffic. Chair, if I may, just for clarity, this is in your in your packet as well, but um if I may, I'll read what the code actually says about brightness of electronic signs, and that might help uh clear some things up. An electronic sign shall not be excessively intense or brilliant. So, that's a general statement. An an electronic sign shall not display light of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or otherwise impair the vision of the driver of a motor vehicle on a public roadway um or result in a nuisance to the driver um or excuse me or a residential dwelling unit located within 200 ft of an electric sign. So the standard there of a nuisance to a residential uh dwelling would be um a factor of illumination within a certain distance in this case 200 feet.

But that would even be on a standard 300 and this was a you know we basically have what 600 750 versus 600. So 750 versus even the size even though the size the proposed size would be bigger that same uh standard would apply. Sure.

Yep. Um and then it gets even more specific. All digital displays shall be illuminated at a level no greater than.3 foot candle over ambient light levels and shall employ devices. And so ambient light levels um vary throughout the day. And so as the ambient light varies then it's required to then dim in accordance to that to a point no greater than.3 foot candles within that distance limitation

which we which we had originally with that other sign and we dimmed it even farther than that. There was something that that came up, Brandon, um that as you were going through your presentation that said something about um there would not be any other signage on the um the parking structure. Can you bring that back up again? I'd just like to see what that verbiage said again.

Let me explain it on this picture and then I'll bring up the verbiage. So, you can see the blue box where the um sign is being proposed. That means that that east face, all of that uh south face and the west face of those two parking structures. Um additional signage, business signage would be prohibited. Directional signage like exit, entrance, park here, that would be different, but additional business signage would be prohibited. And that um that language is right here. So um this says on the parking structure one Yeah. or the extension. When you say the extension, does that mean the parking structure number two?

Yeah. I didn't know if it was being called number two, so I just I mean that one that's will be built next to it. We call it 1.1 and 1.2. Okay. Okay. Um we wouldn't intend to have any more signage on that parking. What about the other buildings that will be built out in um um right in phase one? Are you plan is there plans will there be plans for more signage on those buildings? There's plans for signage but not um LED screen signage just static signage. So So just like the name America first or something like that

logos or Yeah, those kind of things. Branding. Okay. Yep. And then on the you said that there's going to be a branch right below that. There is. Yep. Can you have signage on that one as well? Yes, there'll be signage on the branch right there. My question to that is is if you're going to have signage there, why exceed by 150 square feet on the big one?

So, it's an LED screen, not static signage. Um but the screen is so that you're it's available to see especially from the distance that Riverdale Road and I 84 is we want to capture those eyes. Um one of the reasons that we are going over to that 750 ft um from the 600 ft is as we wrap that corner and where the structural elements lie. Okay. So this is a 15t tall sign. We're only extending it 10 more feet to put it in perspective on the one corner so that we can reach that next structural member. would um you know without having plans um which you may not have um would um um what so the 650 or 600 ft that would normally be allowed is that uh per the for the one structure or how is that defined? three by three.

No, I So this one normally you'd have like 300 here and then the other sign would be 300, right? Yeah, I understand that. But I mean we've got seven buildings here or seven or eight buildings. So um what would be the restriction on the signage for all seven or eight buildings? So each building would be um dealt with individually.

Okay. And that's why I'm proposing as a condition of approval that the second parking structure that's being built 1.1 that it doesn't receive any additional signage because we're really consolidating the allowable signage for that structure onto this structure. So the way it's measured is by the the front-facing facade. You take the distance of that facade and then times it by three up to 600. In this case, that math exceeds 600, right? So, if there wasn't an arbitrary 600 um square foot uh limit, then they could have a much bigger sign if you just just did the frontage multiplied by three. But we say frontage multiplied multiplied by three up to a total of 600. So, if you take the entire uh southern face of both of those parking structures, then the scale works out because you're really just consolidating. Instead of having two 600t signs, you're having one 700 ft uh 750 foot sign.

Can we can we stipulate that the um something about the signage on the other buildings? Um Mhm. That's my recommendation to you. Um, it's not really that clear in the motion language, but you can add that. Okay. What's Sorry. What's the Well, what's the condition? Just that uh there won't be any other um electronic electronic signage on the parking structure on well on any of the other on any of the other buildings in phase one. Yeah. My my language is specific to the parking structure, but Tim's already um acknowledged that they don't have any plans for that. So if that's something that you feel mitigated

plans can change issues. So yeah. So and they and they do frequently. So if they did have to do that, they'd have to come to us again for us to allow that to happen on those other buildings. I mean, there's not plans, but you want to prohibit us from any additional electronic signs. Electronic signs for the entire campus in phase one for all five of those buildings and the three parking structures. You said there were going to be static signs, right? Yeah, that's the plan. Now, I'm just I'm just trying to understand what the condition is because that's a kind of a I mean,

I'm not planning on it, but that's kind of a big condition. that would be the direction that I would like to go and and and you know unless again that can be changed. Um you know should that be your desire uh you could come back before us. Well if it's going to be electronic sign you're going to have to come back before us anyway for a conditional use. But um um

if if you put that on as a condition for the other buildings, then it would trump their right to to um apply as a conditional use because you've taken that away. Um, my recommendation to you was just for the parking structure because again what what could happen under the current code is that he could apply for this sign at 600 ft and then once he builds parking structure number 1.1, he could apply for a second sign of 600 feet and you'd have two signs at 12. Um I this proposal I felt matched the scale of the building better into one consolidated sign at a smaller. So I think it's relative to the parking structure and its massing in scale. I don't think it's relative to the other buildings, but that's just my thoughts to you. Well, I can see them wanting to put I don't know what buildings numbers these are, but the ones that are have facing on along the freeway area there, I could see them wanting to put um um you know, similar signage uh on one if not all of those buildings um you know, as they as they come forward. And right now the code allows for that under a conditional use which as I described if they are able to mitigate any reasonable concerns those those conditional uses would would be permitted and so they really have the option within within um reason to have an electronic sign on every building. This proposal actually consolidates two buildings into one in a much smaller illumination overall. So the only thing that this is applying to are those two parking structures.

This proposal well the proposal is for the parking structure that it's currently being built on. My suggestion is that if you approve it that you limit any additional electronic signage on the adjacent parking structure only which we would agree to. Yeah. Yeah. Is there any other comments as far as what I'm talking about? I agree with you on that. Any ideas with the electronic signs on the other ones? I don't think

I don't I don't like it. I think if if we keep it on the park parking structures as one 750T sign on the one parking structure, I think we'd be good. If we did static on the other ones, I think would look would look better. I don't think it would be crazy with the illumination of it. The only thing that affects me is the static stuff is great. If you put electronic stuff on all those buildings, I see it as a traffic problem, people looking at things and getting wrecks and stuff like that.

Now, that's kind of my concern as well is how do we know that this isn't going to be a distraction to drivers? We already have enough accidents on Riverdale Road and you obviously want them to see the sign, but how do it says how do we not have distracted drivers because they're in their car right there? They're going to read it. So, I can say I guess based on precedence of electronic billboards and another sign that we have on 1500 West, um it's it's common practice. I guess I

UD do regulates um bill electronic billboards that are adjacent to meaning much closer to a state road. This one is further away than what they would regulate. Uh but they have those same concerns, right? Um and the regulations that they have uh imposed have been deemed to be safe. I think what we're looking at here in this proposal follows those best practices. dimming the foot candle illumination within a certain distance. It's not adjacent to any residential uh neighborhoods that would be affected by it. Um so I think I think it's on par with not only what we've approved in the past at their other sign, but also what UD do typically approves for signs that are much closer to the freeway and much bigger. Yeah. All good questions.

I'm satisfied. Any other questions for Mr. Schneiderman? I think I'm good. Okay, then we would entertain a motion at this point. Then I have my glasses to read all that. I would move the motion, but I can't see it all. Make sure you're using the microphone. So,

well, I'll make the motion. Uh, I move that the planning commission approve the conditional use permit application submitted by America First Credit Union for a digital display/ electronic sign on the phase 1 parking structure located at approximately 4648 South 1500 West subject to the following. Okay. findings. In fact, the proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of title 10 chapter 19 in the digital display sign is a use which may be conditionally permitted in the applicable zoning district and will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The sign meets the criteria of title 10 chapter 16. It complies with height, illumination, safety standards, setback and from public rights of way and all structure electronic requirements. The site plan submitted demonstrates that the location of the sign will not create undue glare or distraction to vehicular traffic, will be adequately screened or oriented, and will preserve safety for motorists and pedestrians. The application has demonstrated that the digital sign will not adversely impact the aesthetics character of the neighborhood through appropriate design, materials and illumination levels. The proposal will not cause a substantial negative effect on property values or create nuisance effects, noise, light spillover beyond permissible levels. The size of the sign is proportionate to the scale of the building and does not adversely impact the surrounding area despite exceeding the maximum area requirements. The applicant will monitor and the intensity and brilliance of the sign over time and will adjust as necessary to ensure that illumination

does not exceed 0.3 foot candle over ambient light levels. The digital display shall contain a default mechanism to turn the sign off in case of malfunction or shall be manually turned off within 24 hours of the a reported malfunction. Adequate public utilities infrastructure and service access exists to support the sign and it will conform to building safety codes including the wind and seismic loads as required by chapter 16. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Chair, may I add?

Um, would you like for the record to have the motion include my recommendation that um as a condition of approval that there would be no other electronic signs allowed on the parking on the parking structure the adjacent parking structure? Yes, that's the purpose of the discussion on the motion. If we want to include additional verbiage with that, that would be good. Do we need to read it all over again? No. Just just add that one thing maybe. So then just add that no other LED signage would be added to the other parking structure. That's what you were saying. Yeah.

Okay. So we have a motion. Any further discussion? Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Michelle, would you pull the commissioners, please? Commissioner Borp, yes. Commissioner Francis, yes. Mr. Anderson, yes. Commissioner Hendra, yes. Commissioner Shupe, yes. Commissioner Herman, yes. All right, the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for allowing us to grill you. We appreciate all your efforts.

Commissioner, would you does anybody want any updates on the campus? I while I'm here, I'm happy to answer any questions. So, the office structure that's part of phase one that's under construction presently then, correct? the footings um are just about complete on the office structure and the footings are just about complete on the parking structure at this time. So, and then as you've probably seen on the hillside, if you're coming up Riverdale Road, we're on the second of three tiers um about halfway up that second tier, the block. So, timeline,

we're anticipating opening building A um in the early part of uh 2028. So, we're still about two years away. parking garage. Um, parking garage will be finished before then, but we probably won't open it until the same time as the building is. There's really not a need for it until the building's open. Can you let the cat out of the bag on the branch? Um, our intent is to have the branch open at the same time that the building opens. So, we'll start construction on that in another year or so. That branch have a name?

The Riverdale branch. I just know there's more than one Riverdale branch. Nope. It'll be the Yeah, there's Riverdale Walmart closed. And the other closest branch is the Roy Harmon's branch. Where's the branch going to be? There's the main right next to Right below the bottom. It'll be right here. Okay. Right there. Oh, okay. Bottom corner. They closed the Walmart branch and so this would be the only branch in Riverdale. Yep. So the one the main is considered a main. Yeah. The one over there by the mall. Yep.

So I haven't been up there because the bridge has been closed, but um Brandon kind of referenced or you referenced the roundabout issue. Is that going to be done this year? The roundabout is complete and open. open. In fact, we opened the last leg of it down into campus on Monday, but the other three legs of it were open a few weeks ago. Yeah, they opened that just as they closed 44. Yeah, our timing couldn't have been more perfect. We opened closed the same opened up and then the next day they tore the bridge down. Yeah. Unfortunate timing with you. The landscaping on the hillside that should be complete around summertime or

of next year. Yes. Yes. That's our intent is to probably plant in the spring when nice weather comes back. But we're we're planning on not just a 10-year plan to get that lush. We're we're actually investing in some mature plants to go in right away so that we can make that hillside get back to what it was. It'll be better than it was. It'll be a lot better than it was. Especially if you if you only knew what was on that hillside. I do. I used to Tarzan swing off that one when I was a kid. Oh my goodness. And Ken Anderson artifacts up there.

Let's say there was artifacts. They're not any you wanted to know about. But the other buildings, the other four timelineish,

you know, we're we're trying to move those forward every couple of couple of years. you know, the five buildings might be as much as a 20-year plan, but um you know, it just depends on our growth and um and the acceptance of our board to keep moving forward with the investment, but our intent is to keep moving on the on the master plan. Our our growth right now is is pretty significant. So, we we need the space. So, okay, any other questions? Okay, thank you for your time. Thank you.

All right, next on our agenda, we have discussion regarding Riverdale zoning and land use code update and review of draft updates to uh RCC 10-21 subdivisions. Mr. Cooper.

Okay. Thank you very much. We would like to welcome Mr. Mike Hansen. you've uh seen him in person and as a robot. He's back in person. Um he is our consultant for the comprehensive uh title 10 code update. Uh this version is our subdivision uh chapter. Uh that's chapter 21. And so uh we'll spend the next little while going through um the proposals that he has given us. As you might recall, we didn't get this to this in our last meeting, but as you recall, there was a whole rewrite of the of that section, which was a great idea. It just gives us one document that is fairly clean to go through and review. Some of you have already got into that and made your comments. Um, I've got a lot of comments, as do they. So, uh, we'll turn the time over to Mr. Hansen. Um, he'll entertain us for the next little bit and, uh, we'll go from there.

Entertain you indeed. I was so terrified about how late I was going to be. I apologize. Anyway, is this one on or do I? Yeah. Uh, yeah. Keep pushing it off. Now it's on. Yep.

Anyway, I've never actually heard physically heard the song Jesus Take the Wheel, but I found myself singing it the whole way up here. I've never had traffic like that. There was no reason for that traffic. Sorry for those who don't know me, Mike Hansen. Um, Hansen Planning Group. Uh, I'm going to be taking notes in two ways. I've got uh people listening in on my team. Um hopefully we're going to capture your ideas. Um I hope you can kind of see from our last conversation where we talked about definitions. We focused a lot on that. Um how big you could make this project, but we also know you guys actually want to finish um you know before the Olympics get here. And so we're going to try to you know get you guys focused on one big issue at a time. You guys have to be nice to Brandon. He has done yman's work already on all these titles. Um, we go in, we ask questions, he's in there answering them. It's great. We're we're making a lot of progress that you might not see until you, you know, get really into the doc. So, want to say thanks for that. And, um, yeah, as outlined, uh, we do want to talk about your subdivisions. Before I go, uh, jump right into it though, let me just kind of follow up a little bit on the definitions uh, situation we talked about last time. Uh, if you remember, we we pulled up your current definitions and you have good definitions. They're not great, but they're good. Um, we added some that we end up adding into all of our code projects. You know, just everybody seems to need them or like them or whatever. And we just kind of chunked some of those in there. There is a caution with definitions. We don't want to overdo it and just start throwing stuff in there. We want stuff in there that is currently discussed in your code or is very likely to be discussed in your code. um issues like short-term rentals and and ADUs. Sometimes you can't forecast their coming down as as a big popular thing and you're going to have to amend that title at some point. But we do want to kind of anticipate a little. The thing we worry about is where definition starts to take a life of its own and it becomes like regulation, you know, like

where you say 3T and 5T in your definition. That's where you kind of need to to realize, wait, we've stepped too far. Um, so the first well, okay, don't let me forget the the question I brought up last time is and or maybe it was the mayor, somebody said, "Hey, what if we had a separate title of just definitions that are pretty generic throughout the entire city code, right? And then there was like the land use definitions in this uh title 10." So, uh, make sure we go back to that. But I want to show you a couple of things we found. Our team has been, and we're planning nerds. We do this all the time and we can't seem to find any kind of good like dictionary, you know, there should be a planning nerd dictionary somewhere. I'd buy it. Um, well, anyway, this week I bought two of them. Uh, so I found this one. It's but I want to show you how it works because what I I I got nerdy on this. I thought, "Oh, cool. I'm going to start copying and pasting all the stuff." Then I stopped myself because the all the stuff part of that thought uh hasn't really been like we haven't this group hasn't gone through that part of the code yet. where you're really missing, you're lacking, I would say, in the Riverdale code is defining very specific permitted or conditional whatever uses. You know, like what is a dog kennel? Anyway, we started to find some some documents like this. Um, the most important part here is the, you know, lawyer logos. Um, but the way these work, um, let's see if it'll come up. So this is okay where it talks about what air rights are for example and it's just a definition. The reason why we kind of like that is because this is a you know national level book. It's a pretty standard thing. It's not just local specific. Now if you guys want to have a local specific definition you're going to put that in there for sure. But these are ones that you know should you have a application that goes all the way to a court your definition should be able to point to something we think and

not just be completely out of thin air. So anyway that's how these are um are defined and you know this gets down into like the word ambient. Oh that might be getting a little in the weeds. So we also have some language if I remember correctly in the uh introduction part of your definitions where it says if you don't understand a word or if there's controversy about anything in the entire code like look at Websters look at you know common usage things like that we just want to cover ourselves cover you folks um with definitions like this. So that's the first thing we found. The other one um and yes if you can see my oh you can't see my this is on my boy's Kindle account. That's how I had to find this book. Seems like not a great one until you get into it. Look at this one. This one's even better. Um, take a look at this page for uh Oh my gosh. Sorry. Oh, I shouldn't be in charge of things. I did this last time to you, didn't I? So, what they do with this book, I really like it. There's 2,000 or some millions of definitions. Acceleration lane. So, you might have that. I haven't looked that far. Um, but it's just the bold there is, you know, an added roadway. Like, that's your definition. And then it's got a lot of these, well, not a lot. It's got some illustrations. We would recreate these so they're not so, you know, hand sketchy, but um we like those a lot. That's kind of our style. We like to look for things that make as much sense or more sense as a picture than they do a big giant three paragraphs. So, just so you know, that we like. The other reason why we like this source is it's very extensive. I think it's a 600 something page document. Um, but what they do is they give you the definition here and then underneath they show how it was actually used in a land use court case. So, it kind of has some precedent already tied to it. Um, with the illustrations, we think this is the way to go. So, just so you know, we're our team is back on on being excited about definitions. Um, as we get into your land use titles and you guys say yes, more of this and none of that, whatever, and we need to start defining them. Just so you know, we have

good sources. So I don't want to spend too much time, but is there any other question or concern with the direction we're thinking of going with that? Okay. To my other question on definitions, that idea of a standalone title, um I don't have it pulled up, but the other titles in the city's code. Sorry. Well, anyway, um you don't really have space for a new I mean, you could you could just put it wherever, I guess, but um how exciting is that? Is there more discussion that we need to have about putting I'm sorry. What I'm talking about is the more common definitions in a completely separate title or did our team misunderstand completely and that's just like a idea or you want just land use stuff here or should maybe what I could ask is um would you like our team to work on the definitions title and put land use and everything we think needs to go into your code just in title and then maybe in a future meeting we could prune some out like this doesn't belong here this goes there and we just right now we just kind of pack in your 10-2 I think is what it is.

Is that kind of making sense? Yeah, I think that's at least my preference. I wouldn't want to have to go to a different title to find my definitions for this section. Okay. Yeah. Guess Yeah, we talked a lot too about the idea of your final code being able to just, you know, when you read something about a dog kennel, you can only have one per backyard or we're not doing that. But anyway, you we we talked about clicking the word kennel if it's a defined term and it just pops you there. I kind of like the idea of instead of it trying to go to the exact thing, maybe you can at least get it to that 10-2 or wherever we end up putting it. Yeah, that would be wonderful,

right? At least that's closer. It's not all the way. Oh, sorry. I jumped right into subdivisions, too. I've been clicking around. Uh, okay. What did we just say? We just said um Oh, that we were going to do hyperlinks for the Yeah. Okay, great. Sorry. Okay, so when it comes to subdivisions, um the Were you guys all involved or I think you had some turnover in the planning commission. How many of y'all were involved in the last year fun times with the subdivision stuff? You folks were those two. Okay, we're all new.

Okay, so if you guys I kind of wondered. Wow. All new. So sorry that Wow is not on the record, but um good. So, let me step back a little bit and just make sure everybody's on the same page on where the state went with subdivisions last year. Um, it's now becoming when you talk to other consultants or the land use uh attorneys, they get really nervous about subdivisions because it's sometimes, oh man, I'm preaching now. But sometimes you see the state and what they'll do is it's like a camel nose in the tent thing. They'll start changing one thing and then they say, "Oh, we didn't change it all the way. Oh, I thought we changed it the whole way. and next thing you know, you've got a lot of change. So, there was a sort of small, not really that small change to subdivisions um that was due last year. And the whole idea, I think, was somehow help affordable housing by making it more efficient for a developer to get their housing permitting done. I think that's what they were trying to do. I don't know. But let me show you. This is the graphic that we I don't know. We did a lot of this work last year. Uh this is the graphic that we seem to get most traction out of folks. This is like in a perfect world, the subdivision process is a pre-application phase where I'm a developer and I come to the city and I have like a a napkin and I'm like, "Hey, this parcel, what if I did this?" You know, like a pre-application, nothing's binding. I'm just, you know, talking to Brandon. I just go, "What do you think?" Or or maybe bouncing it off the the planning commission. So, that's your first phase. And then the second phase is, hey, we we invested some money. We got uh an engineer or something and they drew up some plans. Here's our preliminary application. Like, are we kind of going down the right track? And then the city says, oh yeah, that's great. You're you're following all the rules. So that's your second one, like a preliminary phase. And that that actually requires a formal, you know, action from the city. And then this third one is okay. So you guys said you like this and so we the developers we we invested a lot in um getting all the

drawings like perfect, you know, like we've done it all. So here's what our real plan is and it's all polished and engineers played all with the details. The city goes, "Yeah, go do it." And then the last one is go do it, but make sure you promise to pay for the road and all the other little stuff that you promised you'd do. you know that post approval um those conditions that go with it and the guarantees. So that's how the world's supposed to be in a perfect world. What the state said is municipalities and counties if you are being faced with like a giant campus like that. Go through all those steps. Take all the time you want. You got to make those are big decisions. But for some reason for single family two what is it? Two family I think is what they called it and uh like town home or something like that. for those kind of developments. Um, you're going to speed it up a lot. So that's what this graphic kind of if you read it a second way, the dotted line means you got this optional first phase. So if I'm a developer and I'm just building single family, hey, just being a sing building single family, then I can choose to skip that and I can just come to you and say, hey, I want to do this and we can go back and forth in that preliminary phase only a limited number of times. We can go back four times then and and after the fourth, you all have to make a decision that's either absolutely yeah or absolutely no. You can't say come back a fifth time if it's residential. If you can't resolve it, our understanding is how kind of goes to the applicant, which is not awesome. But anyway, um then the final is just literally the final and there's like time limits built into state statute. And it's kind of a funky thing because it's um it's only applying to that type of development product, you know, the single family house or a twin f or a duplex or town home. So that was the state's idea. And we ran around the state. We did a third of the state's uh

code on this. Um, and what we found is a lot of towns said, "Wait, you want me to put in two different subdivision processes? That doesn't work. Let's just get because it's going to confuse your planning commission. It's going to be the developers are going to kind of roll their eyes and if they try to do a mixeduse thing, what do you do with that?" You know, there's just confusion. So, a lot of towns said, "Hey, why don't we just have one process that makes it compliant with the new law and other things?" So, that's kind of where we wanted to to see if you guys had any interest. Now, your current code, we weren't here for yours. And so, we don't know how much blood, sweat, and tears or maybe that's why you guys are all replacing people. I don't know if that's kind of what happened with your last process. Uh, or if you absolutely love it. Um, but we've been going back and forth with Brandon and we kind of think this is the way to go that you have one one process and it's just because you you're not all the way built out, but you're you have like development agreement type development opportunities which totally throws this whole process out and you just get to do something different. But for this kind of work, maybe that's the way we do it is just there's one, you know. So that's kind of way that one of the big number one assumptions that we have on this. So, if we're completely wrong on that, then shut us down now and we'll go home. But, yeah,

one point that I wanted to bring up to you. Um, we're going to be limited on a little bit of our time constraint tonight. No problem. So, good. 8ish is probably what we're No problem. No pro. Yeah. Yeah, you are absolutely fine. Thank you though. At 8, but if you all want to stay longer, I I don't have any consensus as to where we're at. We'll come down.

No, no, that's great. I'm glad you brought that up. Yeah, cuz I can get preachy and you guys could just I'll just type whatever you say and then we'll get your project done that way. Um, one thing I wanted I I don't know if you can even see that. See this little comment thing up in this like 81 I think. Um, that's how many comments have gone back and forth just since we submitted this to you. So, thank you for those that took some time and had some time to go in and type into it. Um, that's great. You can see that we can see those um pretty good. We're um Oh, I guess I should say this in the intro. Um, this is out for the public. They are available to come and look at what we're doing. I haven't received a single comment yet. So, um, waiting for that day, uh, when that comes and after we get into this, you'll see why, uh, maybe people don't want to invest all their time in that. So, anyway, for for subdivisions, there is another graphic. I'm looking for it. Sorry. It's way down here somewhere. There it is. This is also super important as far as the new state statute. So you can see the single family path. I don't know if this is a really great way to demonstrate this, but if you're applying with a single family residential or I guess we could call it two family. Um during that preliminary phase, this is state statute. You can only look at it four times. Um and what I mean by looking at it is I the applicant have now given it to the city and you got so the ball is in your court. That's kind of and then you give it back. That's a cycle. So if you say, "Oh man, you guys forgot to put roads or whatever and you give it back and I'm the developer and I go back and I make my edits and I come back to you again." That's now we're on number two. Does that make sense? Um it also says you can only hold one public hearing. So if it's a super controversial thing, you can choose whether to hold a public hearing. Half of my towns actually cut that out. They just said it's going to be public clamor. We as a planning commission have

to follow our own rules. And if the applicant follows rules, we can't say no. So why give people an opportunity to get frustrated? So I I thought we talked about that last time, didn't we? Yeah. And didn't we decide that we didn't want to do public hearings, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I wanted to Okay. Yeah. We're required for certain things, but this is optional. Yeah. Right. I think we were talking about the other like community meeting.

Yeah, I think you're right. Like where they could have a little neighborhood meeting. Oh. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We totally shot that, by the way. Thank you. We edited that right out of the code. Uh that was a very clear message from you guys. Yeah. That that was where you folks would go out and hold a neighborhood meeting or something when Oh, yeah. That's just inviting some problems, but uh we wanted to know if that was something you're interested in. Small towns love that. We just get clarification. So, I want to build a subdivision, but it's all single family homes. That is that that middle column. Then the top row. Yeah. The top, man. I got to get a better graphic. One public hearing.

Yep. And that public hearing is optional. Um, but you can't hold two. You know what I mean? Like the state statute is super clear about that. But if you guys choose to do one process, that's why we kind of kept it in there. We're not sure. Um it's like that last applicant for example, that is a major development, right? And you might want to have a public hearing on it. Um so yeah, that's why we we kind of aren't sure whether you want to have a public hearing option or not. Um but this is where you can see kind of the the comment on the far right. This is where it's a problem. If I hand I the applicant, sorry, hand my application in. According to state statute, you all have a timer on you. 30 days to give it back. By the way, when the statute was first written, you had 15 days. Anyway, that's like you're holding a planning commission every two weeks, no matter what. All towns had to do that. That's like the smaller towns were having a heart attack on that. Anyway, um so now you have 30 days. So within a month, I have I the developer have to get some kind of feedback. This is perfect. Keep it moving. You know, we approve whatever or uh no, we're not doing that. fix this. Like you have to give that feedback within 30 days. That part's in statute. The part that isn't in statute is I the developer, how much time do I have to make the edits that you all asked for? big controversy by the way um in towns and they all kind of galvanized in this idea of and and you guys do what works for you but there are some towns that say that if an application comes in and they get like a first set of red lines from the planning commission for example they go back to the office and if they disappear for two years you know your planning commission's changed your staff's changed you might have even changed your code then they come back and they go oh well you've already been through this once here

and and it kind the towns feel like they have a disadvantage with that because it's like it's not really that current and there's some assumptions maybe that were made before that weren't written down or something. So they say, "Hey, can we put um some kind of rip cord on the developer on the applicant uh to give them a time limit um to make their changes or they start the process over?" Yeah. Well, you know what I mean? Like they would start over at the beginning and just do a new application fee and a brand new The reason why towns kind of go with that. Uh the thing that we heard um was just this idea that um if the planning commissioner of the staff has to give that many red lines that they go back to the drawing board. They need to come back with a new application because it's a that was a big X like we're starting over. That's why they liked it. So anyway, we did a lot of them where it was 180 days. That's a half a year. Knowing you might be working with an architect or an engineer or something that's super expensive and busy or other land owners and all that kind of stuff. We thought, okay, give them the benefit of the doubt, but a half a year if they can't get their edits done by then, they start over. Um, so that's the way we wrote yours. It's also very long. You know, if if you want developments that's like ripe and you know, what's the technical word for grown-up developers? But you know what I mean? like like a professional application and they really want to do the right kind of business with the city or in the city half a year is kind of a long time too. So I think the the comment uh Brandon you were saying like that might be even too long. So that's then one of our big questions is how long do you want developers to have time if you want them to have it.

Yeah. My rationale was we're required for a 30-day turnaround. Um, I didn't think it was very uh equivalent to have a six-month turnaround. Yeah. Um, so day turn each cycle. Yeah. Mhm. 30 days for each cycle. So if you give me red lines and I'm the developer, I go back and I make my edits and I give it back. Now we're on round two, but you still only get 30 days for that round. So you it just puts a lot of pressure on from the time you receive that back.

It It puts cities on notice. there's like a clock that ticks. There's other cities that have actually gone out and had to buy they feel like they had to buy um software that kind of automates their application process. So, it gives them warnings. So, you only have 10 days left to review this. Um this has to go on your next agenda. You know, software that forces that just because these timelines are they're kind of the due process part of this subdivision process. So you you know and and and if you as a city don't respond in due time it's kind of a default approval. So I I need some clarification. So we start the first cycle developer hands it in. Brandon and crew have 30 days. Then the developer can go back and have 180 days before the next cycle.

Okay. Well that's why we wrote it right now and that's what we wanted to ask you. Not just like time. Yeah. It's very long. I mean, if you're going to change people or if you've got a really warm, you know, market for development, I don't know. Maybe that's too long. Can you pull the table back up again? Yeah, sorry. I thought maybe that it was 30 days back and forth. I was reading it as 180 is the total time for all the cycles. Oh, no, no, it's each cycle. Each turn. Oh, no. That's too heck. Is that I thought it was down here somewhere. That's what I thought, too. Was Yeah, this was the final end. So, while he's pulling that up, I would say page 31, I think,

that in my experience that by the time you get to a preliminary um plat application where there's an engineer on board, the property owners are usually on board um that the applicant is serious and so 180 days is an outside date for extenduating circumstances. Um, so I would recommend that we shorten that to a much short much um faster time turnaround because again it is per cycle. I would say three months um and then 90day. Yeah. And then maybe allow for some exception based on I'm going to do a MIAPA. Yeah.

I was following on this and I may have hit something that Oh, okay. Okay. Oh, I didn't want to do anything else, but if there's a back button or refresh, a control Z moment. Are you the anonymous grizzly? Huh? Are you anonymous grizzly? I don't know if I'm an anonymous grizzly. Find out where your mouse is. That's who it that's who it was showing that was I saw something going on there. I thought that was your I was in here and was just scrolling through and so I made like the table at all. We took it out. I'm Yeah, I'm one that uh looks like the tape is still there. I'm looking for it. Looks like it's gone. I still got it. Well, we can find it. It's It's still there. It's Google.

So, one thing that happens here is that we have a 30-day turnaround to get that to them. Is that right? Yeah. And then they we decide if we're going to change it to 90 days for them to get it back to us on the first cycle. That's right. Huh. That's a long time. Or and every other cycle. I need to screenshot it. We might need to look at this again. And one thing that one thing that we haven't talked about yet, but um I'm sure Mike will get to is

um the land use authority. That is a I think an important consideration because in this case on a preliminary plat, you are the land use authority. Meaning it doesn't go to the city council. It doesn't come um uh to anyone else, right? And so keep that in mind as you're thinking about review times. um how much time you want to spend with an application before you approve a preliminary and also the public hearings, right? So, there is no second step with the city council. So, there isn't an option to have them do a public hearing if you didn't. Um I'm not advocating for a public hearing. I'm just saying that you are the land use authority as it's currently being written. And so, as what you decide in the preliminary uh application is is the final answer. And then once they come to final, it doesn't even come back to you. It um staff is the land use authority.

Yeah. Isn't doesn't it say something about the a staff commission or something like that? We've changed that. It has some language that was pulled from our current code. Um but it's it's a little bit it overlaps with some other committees that we have. Um so we're just going to say city staff, I think. Yeah. Or application review committee or something. Yeah, that's a big big deal too is who is the city or who's the land use authority for each one of those phases. Um so there's the 180 days where did it come from? Who like we made it up. Yeah. No, other towns were just saying that they wanted right now state statute says nothing. So again that applicant could go and disappear for 10 years and then come back and say well I'm on round two.

So we just said no no no you got to try harder than that. Um, so think of what we've gone through with a particular development

and keep that in mind as we talk about other deadlines too, like how long is a final plaque good for? Right now it's a year with with um the ability for the commission to give an extension, but that might also be too long. How long's it now? Now there's two sides, right? There's a preliminary and a final. So, do you want to have the preliminary plaque go stale before they ever come back to the final? So, what does that timeline look like? I think that can be a little bit longer. Um, but deadlines mean a lot because it's a lot of work for everybody to have to redo stuff. Yep.

Yeah. I mean, you're you're making folks start over if you wait long enough. Did he really delete the table? I don't know. Or else my guy's in there. He deleted it. Somebody I didn't think we gave you guys edit rights, but maybe we're good. I didn't think you did either.

Maybe we'll There's a lot of comments for Anyway, we'll find it. We We have backups. Um but with the land use authority, that is a big deal with these uh each bubble. Um yeah, so sorry you guys were just talking about I was frantically looking for a table. Uh the preliminary phase is who's going to be that land use authority? just you them. Okay. And and did you say um it was going to be called like the application review committee or something like that?

I'm okay. I put my notes in as application review committee or just city staff. Um the applica whoever reviews the preliminary uh plat on the city side. It would be myself, the city engineer, the public works director, the city attorney, the fire marshal. Um, and that needs to be called something as general as city staff or on here you're calling it the planning staff committee. Yeah, I thought that was weird. Yeah. Um because not all of those people are planning staff. They are different departments. Okay. So, um application review committee I think is more more appropriate or just as general as

I like application review committee too. We also have a design review committee which just is made up of the mayor, myself, public works director, city administrator, and um the planning commission chair that just reviews architectural design of a of an applicant application. So, we don't want to get it confused with that either. Oh, okay. I don't think did we write that in there? Uh no, I like that though. Okay, hold on. So, design review committee, a DRC is different than the application review committee. Uh that list was good. attorney fire. It's the folks that can shut an idea down that if it's a really bad idea, you know, like just go back. Don't even bring it before the planning commission. You forgot to do some big thing.

Sorry, it was attorney, fire, building uh building um public works. Uhhuh. And city engineer. Engineer. Okay, I like that. And your design uh review committee, we don't have that in here. We h we have that um in a separate title. Is that three two? Okay. Yeah. So all of our committees and and organizations are all defined in that title. Partner ring a bell. Yeah. I think I remember reading that. Okay. Okay. Good.

Okay. And then so the design review committee um when do they see it? Do they see it before like a formal application's made or kind of after it's been polished a little bit? Um, they wouldn't see a subdivision ever. They would only review architecture, just the architecture stuff. And they would see that um prior to a site plan submission. Okay. Yeah. Okay. This is making sense. I thought we were doing away with the preliminary approvals. Well,

that's a preliminary site plan. So, our code prior to our last change did a similar to thing as what subdivisions do where they had a preliminary site plan and then a final site plan. I didn't like that. So, we just do a site plan. Okay. That's what I Yeah. Yeah. So, similar language just different items.

Yep. Okay. Okay. Good. Okay. So, all right. So, yeah. So, well, let's before I start scrolling make you guys all car sick again. Um, some of the comments in here, maybe we don't need the entire planning commission to invest all your brain cells onto it, but it's like who signs the actual bottom of the plat for example. So, that's what that comment is right there. Uh, subsection U, you these are the folks that have to sign off on it. So, if you're feeling like you're missing out on uh some really important discussion, this is just like some of the detail that we're putting in here. So, you'll see that when it gets to the end and we'll present it back to you. But um that just so you know that's all got to be in your code. Um okay. So if we've talked about uh I well tell me if my notes are true. Applicant gets 90 days to go make their edits. Right. You guys have to do your 30. Um um we'll find the last table. Make sure it's called the application review committee. Um where's that chart again? Yeah, because we called it something weird like planning something committee.

Yeah. So, this pre-application would be your application review committee. Is that correct? Right. It says it says um planning commission. Um so my note over to the side. Oh, here we are. Yeah. Um so, uh let's make it all one process for all uses. And then the preop meeting is with city staff or in this case architectural or uh uh application review committee.

Okay. All right. No, sorry. Now it's clicking for me. I totally get it. Um, okay. So, that's your preliminary phase. By the way, this I don't know if this helps or sometimes this graphic doesn't help. Supposed to show that you can go around the horn four times, but don't try to go five. That's what that's supposed to say. You couldn't think of a better way to do it other than like loops or something. No, we're not doing that. Um, one of the other questions is if you want to hold a public hearing. Well, first question, do you want to hold public hearing? And if so, when do you want to hold it? You want to hold it early in the process? Just going to hold it end or just kind of depends on the application. I thought we eliminated that. Just get rid of it. Not for the subdivision. Yeah. Oh, gotcha. Okay. The question is, do you want to get

Yeah. So, that's the first question is do you want to have a public hearing on subdivisions? I I want to have the option to have a public hearing because if it's I mean I'm thinking about the houses that came in that put in um I don't know that side of Riverdale very well but the newer area over by Harley-Davidson like a lot of people were really upset about all of that. I'd like to hear their feedback so we can incorporate some of their concerns. Mhm. So, I don't want to just eliminate it, but does it have to be we always have to have a public hearing if there's a new subdivision or it can always be optional?

I can't remember if your current code says you have to hold a public hearing. I know some things you have to hold a public hearing and you get an audience like this. Um, but definitely not for subdivisions. And like I said, uh, early, they some towns just got rid of it because they didn't want the public to come in and say, "No apartments in our town or whatever." But if they have the property right according to the code, you have to give it to them. Yeah.

So that's why they just said, "Get rid of them all together." I I think I I like the option to have and not the requirement to um because in the preliminary application phase, so if you follow this chart, we've already had a staff meeting with the applicant, right? We've told them, look here, here, here, and here. Here's your requirements. This is what we expect from you. They're going to submit that to us. It doesn't come to you directly. It comes to me. We review it prior to ever coming to you as a preliminary application. Right? Okay. So, we've already gone through two reviews, one um kind of pre-application and one at the application phase. And then once we get the the actual submission ready to come to you, um then there that is the time for you or someone else aka the public to provide additional comments that we might have missed that might be important to the public. So that's the only reason why I think that having a public hearing at the preliminary phase would be important because there is the risk of having clamor. But there also is the risk there also is the benefit of having a neighbor saying, "Listen, you're proposing a four-story apartment building right next to my house and I have um a bonsai tree that needs the the sun."

Right. That's that's something that might be important to you as neighbors and and community members. A vegetable garden. Yeah. that we didn't consider as um as reviewers. Yeah. Or traffic concerns or just any of that. Yeah. I know Clinton City right now is facing a big one because they've got a development going out there that's got houses, apartments, um town homes,

and they've come to the point where the citizens have got a a petition. So what would be our process? I mean do we have a public hearing if a petition is submitted for that or I think what the recommendation is is that just optional.

It's up to you. So, my hunch is that the the desire to have a public hearing would happen at the initial point that you see the the uh preliminary subdivision, right? So, the first time that you see it, that's probably the best time to get everybody's feedback. So, what I would do is kind of try to ascertain whether or not it's worthy of a public hearing based on what you guys think. So, I would call you prior to scheduling it and say, "Hey, we've got a four-story apartment building going where the Leslie's used to be. Um, is that something that you think as a commission you would want to hear from the public about?" And you'd say, "Sure." And then we'd agenda that at the preliminary application phase? That's that to me seems seems like you're giving the opportunity for input at the earliest point possible instead of the latest point

because usually I mean if if you didn't provide that advice to us as is typically the case we're already eight months down the road before people get pay attention and decide that they want have input and we're already past that point. Yeah. And the developers already invested all of that time and the city's put in all that time.

Yeah. Because again, you you you will not see the final and you will only see the preliminary up to four times. Well, the other side of this coin too though is that uh a a lot of times our hands are tied as to what we can do because uh property owners have rights and um uh if they're, you know, if according to our code, they're allowed to do whatever they're saying they want to do, then you know, then we have to allow it. If we don't allow it, then you know we can be sued because we're going against our own uh our own code.

Right. Exactly. And that might be another reason to keep that optional public hearing in there because you as a comm say this is the only people in the city that thinks it's a you know fair idea. not good idea, but fair according to the rules that you put in your code. And and you mean fair by fair to the to the property owner, like it's a illegal or it's a conforming or whatever applicate.

But if everybody comes here with their pitchforks, then it gives you an opportunity in that public hearing to say our rule said 30 ft. This is 29 ft. They're actually better than the rule or whatever. You you can kind of say here's why. Yeah, we're saying yes. And I would actually recommend, especially as if you get anything that's controversial, don't just vote yes or no. You're voting yes because or no because and you just kind of put a little bit in the record of I'm concerned about this isn't matching that. Right. One thing that if we have a a public hearing, I would like to put it in there that one public hearing when it's done, it's done. Yeah. No more can be reinstituted. Does that make sense? Mhm.

Only one and done. So for Yeah. Okay. Cuz that's how the statute is for your um single family and two family. It says one if you want to have one at all. For your other ones are like that big giant campus. Um I think we have in that table. Uh we had two um up to two. But that's for like big giant commercial stuff or I guess it's not big giant commercial. It's anything other than sing I keep forgetting. Anything other than single family, two family and town home. So, okay. What do you think about that? Just keeping it to one public hearing. I think it's worthy optional. Okay. And then for the non-residential uses, um, same. Same

because we're trying to just make one track instead of having two tracks like we do now. It really I mean, I don't want to sound like a developer, but it does. I mean, it is fair to the de to the applicant. If that applicant says, "Hey, I read your code. I wrote this up. Thought it was going to fit." If somebody says, "It's ugly." So that's how they feel about it, right? Like it it's kind of my right as the applicant to get it if it's permitted clearly. Okay. And and just to be clear, we're saying required. Yeah. So if the commission wants to have 10 public hearings, that's their discretion, but they're only required to have Yeah. So, but what we've done is flip that. You're not required to have any, right, Mike?

Yeah. So you're not required to have any, but you have the discretion to have as many as you want. Makes sense. Is that right? That I think so. We'll clarify that and I'll come back to us to make the decision whether we want to have more or any not. Yeah. Or any. So well, I think Allan's point was he wanted to it to only say up to one. Yeah. optional up to one. You said as many as we want. I said, "Oh, that's not what I was thinking." Okay.

I was thinking that if we do a optional and we choose to do it and it's done, we're good. We don't have to have anybody reenact another or request another public hearing. It's been done. It's over. We've accomplished what we wanted to do.

That could go either way. Um, so you're making you're making you're kind of binding the discretion of future commissions, right? So by having an an option of as many as you want, then that gives the commission time at the discretion of the chair to collaborate amongst yourselves to determine what's best for the the community. If you restrict it to a to a certain number and you feel that there should be more and there's some dispute or disagreement amongst the commission members, then that could be bad because the code just limits you. Yeah.

And I tend to agree with you there because we're still the body that's going to be making that determination if we want more because we don't know what's going to be happening in the future and to limit Someone stepping in behind us I think is going to create a burden for them possibly because deciding I think sub I think single family subdivision requires one right now is that right one is required I think so and what what about additional just one just one

oh you mean other than single family for that's confused is done. Okay. Yeah. You know, I'm going to pull up my uh word version of this. Um my Yeah, my thinking was state statute says you can have up to one, you know, zero or one if it's single family or duplex, you know, that really small. But if we're going to have one process that rules them all, that becomes, I think, a pretty limiting statute. Well, cuz in that t in that um chart we had there were two lines still. Gosh, sorry. Oh, so that's a point where where we might have to diverge.

We better go back and clarify this. Yeah. Do you understand what you're saying? So, what we're trying to do is um converge two separate subdivision processes that we currently have on the books. Single family, town home, and everything else. So we're trying to converge that into one process, but the state code requires that you have up to one on single family. So if we just have one process, that means you have to have up to one for all of them because it's inclusive of the single family requirement. Um so the verbiage would be up to one mandatory zero possibly up to one mandatory. You can't have any more than one mandatory, but it doesn't mean you have to have one,

right? Okay. Doesn't mean you have to have a one. That's right. Okay. But can can it be defined up to one for single family or That's how Mike has it now in the table that you deleted. Yeah. I think I deleted it. I just don't understand. I cannot find it. Oh my gosh. It's not there. Oh, this is embarrassing. I just I was just scrolling through and all of a sudden it was gone. I went,

I don't think it was you. What if uh what if it said something like it was it was optional up to one and then at the discretion of the planning commission. Um additional public hearings can be held if necessary or something like that. But that could only apply to non-s single family because the code the state code says you can only have one for single family. So I don't think we're going to be able to combine Yeah. Then in that manner compatible I I think we do go back to the table and say

state code says no more than one for single family all others your discretion. That solves that. Okay. Sorry that was a long way around. We got distracted. That's fine. We got it's important. Um, fortunately it's a table or you know some language that we can tweak. Um, well right now it says one for single family and everything else too. Yeah. So that's what it says in the table, right? Correct. The mystery table. Yeah. I I I have a copy of the mystery table. Good. Keep that. We might need to beg you for that. I literally don't understand it. It's it's attached to the meeting minutes that Mr.

Good. Good. Good. Yeah, that's great. That's funny and scary, but okay. Funny. I really like that. Okay. Well, good. I just in the interest of time, it's 7:30. Um, I'm going to come back to you and show you what that maybe looks like. I'm going to clean up those flowcharts a lot with the new names of the the titles. We've actually built those flowcharts with the the times and the or not times, sorry, the dates. Yeah, the timelines in it. And maybe we can make that a little more clear and then we can finish this conversation. Um, we talked about land use authorities. That's important. We talked about timeline with applicants. Um public hearings. We've talked about um final Oh, how do you want a final subdivision to be approved? Uh let me show you what your flowchart looks like on that. So, this is what your preliminary would be. It's you get your optional meeting at the Oh, you had a comment about not wanting it to be optional. You want to make that mandatory. You want to try for that or

you're talking about the pre-application. Pre-application. Sorry. Yeah. I like them. I like it mandatory. It's It's kind of prefuncter because they're all coming in anyway. You got to do it. If you're a developer and you don't take advantage of that. My gosh. That means you're coming in with like the most cookie cutter thing in the universe or something. And

right like why else would you skip that? Yeah. It's free consulting from the city. Anyway, um but the state statute says we should be, you know, careful with it. This is how we were drawing your um your final application. And we labeled it as new subdivision. I don't know if you would agree this is new, but so this is after they've already got their preliminary approval. They're coming back for, you know, they've really polished the thing up. Then they're coming in and they're doing one cycle for the final. They only get to do it once if it's residential. Um, I think your current code, if I remember correctly, said you could do it twice. Like if it's that giant business campus you were just looking at. I think it said they could go twice back and forth. Or did I just make that up? I might have just made that part up. Anyway, um, for residential at least, and if we're going to combine them, it would be for you guys, it would be turn in the final application. City just checks, did you do all the stuff we said? You still have to do that 30-day thing. Um and and it's a written response back from the city to the to the applicant,

which we currently do. Yeah. Which you I mean you guys have staff, you're good. Um we were gonna shorten theund day peri 180day period, weren't we? Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Make that like 90 days or something like that. That's a good point. I would have fixed the other flowchart. And keep in mind the way it's written now, the land use authority for final approval is staff, not plan, not plan commission. So you come to us. So this process is is me. I swear I didn't touch that. Mine's turned off here. This must be your people that's messing with

Michelle. Do we have anybody on that's listening to us or something? Shell, do we have anybody online? Oh my gosh, no. It's Sorry, sensor being confessed. Yes, they're in there and they're panicking and looking for a table to throw in. I assume you know what it's like to be us. It's kind of this all the time. It's embarrassing. Anyway, um usually not in a public meeting. Uh we sit there and edit each other's documents. Anyway, sorry. What I was getting to is you're going around with your your final application review. Then comes the final final approval. That's what that uh fourth button is there. I don't know. So, was it you?

And then it goes into the all the guarantees. Have when you guys did this before, was that a big issue? You guys are kind of bigger um with performance guarantees and bonding and all that stuff. Is that resolved the way you guys kind of like it or you you've um cleaned it up a lot? I've added a number of comments, but yes, your version of of because we did the subdivision and it conflicted with our another chapter. Oh, so we need to look at that. But um your version was clean, I think.

Okay, good. We had some towns that what we're talking about like the state says for residential and so forth. Um you only you had three options as a town on on how to do that post approval stuff. is, you know, making sure they actually build the sidewalks or put in the landscaping or whatever. Um, it was like a letter of credit and a bond and then, um, what was the other one? Escrow.

Yeah. And escrow. And some of the other towns we worked with, they said, "Are you kidding? We don't want any of those. We just want them to build it before we give them final approval." Said, "Well, it's not state statute, but okay." And so that's the way they did it. We just we consult. We can't control. So, but um but it sounds like you you guys are okay with that. That's really technical stuff. You'll see it when you get a final draft from us. It's I don't know. We have a process for it. I added some language that would address that. We have an actual agreement that they sign. Um and yeah, so I think it's a it's in much better shape than it has been.

Perfect. Okay. Yay. All right. Good. Oh, we're making progress. Do you guys want to keep talking about subdivisions or talk about some of the other stuff we're pondering upon? It's pretty much what we studied, wasn't it? Yeah, we can move on. No. So, I think the two big things are are you okay with the land use authority division as we are proposing it, meaning your preliminary staff is final, doesn't go to city council that we can't do that anyway because of state law, but so that's a big that's a big question. Um, time frames. I think we talked a lot about that. You're seems like you're in favor of reducing time frames to be a good balance between our needs and their needs.

Um, let's talk real quick about expiration. So, what happens when when final approval is given and recording doesn't happen or preliminary approval is given and and we don't like the 180, but I guess 90 days. So, what happens after that? Do they start all over? Well, the 180 and you can extend another. Sorry. It's just so funny he's calling us. Do you want to be able to extend doing that though? Well, that's that was been an issue. Do you want to be able to extend a preliminary plaque plat? Let's start there. So, preliminary.

So, preliminary approval is given. They don't come back for a final in 90 days. Let's call it expired. Do you want them to start over or do you want to provide an extension? Wouldn't that be on a case- by case basis? I guess we have to write it up before Well, if they if they don't come back in 90 days and and it expires, then they can't extend it. Yeah. If it's already expired. Is that correct? We have the option that we can if they come in before it expires at

they have to give us written notice that they want an extension just like they do now. But the question is, do you want to have an option to extend a preliminary plat or do you just say you have to get it to final prior to the date or it just expires? That's a really good question. What could could we say we will pro um would consider another a 90-day ex another 90-day um extension extension and then after that 90-day extension if they haven't you know completed everything that needs to be done at the end of that 90 days then they have to start all over again. So that's consistent with our kind of six-month time frame now,

right? Um, it's a little bit shorter. We give them a 30-day. It's up to you. We have to I think we have to make that non-discretionary. Meaning if you grant the extension, that's discretionary, but the timeline is is written down. Right. Right. So if they go to the 90 So So you've given them 90 days after preliminary approval to come back with a final plat. they miss that or they're they're going to miss that, but they email me and say, "Hey, we're going to miss the 90-day turnaround. Can we get an extension?" They come back to you. What option do you want that extension to be? I think I need more information.

Is it prudent? Can it normally be done in 90 days? What are some of the drawbacks that would hold them back from being able to complete that in 90 days? That's true. That's good question. Um my experience is that as you like I said as you start a plat process you're kind of that's not something it's so expensive that it's not something that you're doing to kick the tires right

so once you start the plat process you're kind of in it to win it. If you get plat approval, then you've you're serious about starting your project, especially because we've got other places in the code that says that your land use has to be decided prior to even doing the plat. Meaning, if there's a conditional use that's required, you have to go through that first. If there are some other things that designate land use, you have to do that prior to subdivision reszone. Um, because it is such an extensive process. So, so that what you just said does not include the timeline. It's something that has to be done before the timeline starts. That's right.

That's right. So, so if you've got preliminary plat approval, you spent lots of money and time to get to that point. Um, as I've mentioned, there are that's where the 90 days begins that we're referring to right now. Yeah. You've got approval. You've got 90 days to turn that into a final approval. Um, and usually, back to your question, usually staff and the developer has worked together so much that even by the time you get it as a commission, there's not going to be very many changes that you're going to need to identify. They would have already been identified through our review process. Um, oh wow, a magic.

I did it. I put it back. Yeah, let record show that I don't know. It was moving. Anyway, keep going.

Answer to say that between preliminary and final, there is not much to have to change usually if you've done a really good review. Um, so if there's if they can't meet that 90-day deadline, then it's something like financing or a property owner issue or something bigger than just adjusting the red lines to the to the drawings. Well, that's what I've seen uh is that uh if if it's if there something is it's just like the plat that we just uh had to uh uh reapprove um recently. Um it's it's because people ran out of money, property was sold, um you know, there were new owners and things like that. And so things just sat and didn't get done because of that. Um so uh it it's usually has something to do with that.

Yeah. If they apply for an extension, they have to give solid reasons as to what's happened that's created the issue which is currently required. Right. And state the state legislature um is actually focused on that. You probably caught that in the league meeting. Um because there are these issues across the board with expirations of site plans and subdivisions. And so being able to define what um those uh I can't remember what our language calls it, but those reasons why um the extens the the deadline was missed. Not everyone does that and the state's going to require it, but we've already been doing that, so I think we're okay.

Okay. So if they do allow if we do allow to have them apply for extension, my suggestion is that we determine how long that extension will last. Build that instead of saying, "Okay, we're automatically give you another 90 days." No, we need to be able to say, "Okay, this is legitimate only maybe need you 60 days." We have the option to choose what the length of time the extension will go to.

I would recommend that you you include discretion with a menu. So, if you want some discretion, it wouldn't be open-ended discretion. It would be a discretion of a menu. So, there's a 90-day option, a 30-day option, a 60-day option, 120day option. That's the choices that you can have so that there's a little bit of reliability and less subjectivity to what's going on. That's going to protect you as a commission. That's going to help the developer know what he's up against. So if you want some discretion, I would say give yourself a couple of options or a maximum. Yeah, a maximum. You don't have to do the maximum every time. Maximum number of Yeah, I like that.

So let's say it is a maximum of six months and that's your discretionary um room. You know, you can say, well, we don't think your your reason is worth six months. We think you can satisfy these issues in three. So there you go. I like that. Yeah. Mhm. So, if they apply for an extension, they automatically get it or do you have the option? Okay. So, you can decide yes or no?

Currently, it's at your discretion. What we're talking about now is um how do we adopt that knowing that you're not going to ever see the final and that there is a timeline to the preliminary that you don't want to languish forever. So, we've said 90 days. There's extenduating circumstances sometimes. How much do you think is reasonable in giving them as as a maximum? So, we could set this the the standard at 90 days. You got 90 days for your preliminary uh to turn that into a final. Turn that into a final, but we could go up to 120 under these conditions.

Is that what you were saying earlier with the menu? An extension. That's what I meant. the menu as far as the extension. So, but the 90 days. Yeah. Make sure there's there two times. So, the extension is at the end of the 90 days, not at the time of extension. So, if they have Right. Right. Yeah. They have 90 days and they come in to you at 80, right? And you give them 120, they actually have 130. Right. Is it too late to be doing that kind of math? No. It's just that I somehow got the notion that we were flipping back to the 180 because we were doing 120.

Okay, let's So, let's separate that. How long do you want to have the shelf life of a preliminary plat approval? Currently, in the in the process chart that Mike's presented, it says 180. To me, that's too long. Yeah, I agree. Say 90. Are you are you okay with 90? Yes. Okay. So preliminary PLA is approved. They have 90 days to turn that into a final. Now if they can't meet that 90-day deadline and the two questions, do you want to be able to grant an extension? I think you've said yes. Question number two is for how long? At your discretion. I think like you were saying up a maximum up to

Yeah. What number? Well, my feeling is is that uh uh with the preliminary they're given 90 days. Why on an extension would we give them more than another 90 days? Agreed. And uh you know if we felt like that you know if we feel like that that you know the time that we approve the preliminary to the time that we give them to turn that into a final. If that's 90 days, why would an extension be longer than that? And so I think that it should be, you know, an extension should be an additional 90 days. Okay. Agreed. Up to 90 days like a Yeah. You want to do that 30 60 90?

I mean, you're looking you're looking now from the time that they got their initial initial approval of their preliminary to the time that with the extension to the time that that uh that they now have to get their they'll have 180 days. That's 6 months, you know, that they have to uh go from a pre preliminary to a uh to a final. I I think that, you know, under rare circumstances, um that should be able to happen. So, I think Mike's saying that 90 is the maximum. Do you want the ability to all to say something below that? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, maximum up to 90. We'll do Yeah. We'll do some kind of a menu type thing. Yeah. Yeah. like A, B, or C.

Yeah. Well, no. A could be zero. In other words, you don't give them per, you know, an extension. Yeah. So, BCD is 30, 60, 90 or something. Yeah. So, it's not arbitrary. Are you okay with that? Yeah. Yeah. I think that's fair. Oh, that's great. Oh, I love subdivisions. This is all we did last year. Uh, and this year, too.

Yeah. And now this year, we're back to it. I think I intentionally forgot half of this stuff. Um, okay. Thanks for uh getting into subdivisions. Um, last thoughts on that. This gives us a lot. I don't think it's going to be perfect next time we come to you, but it's going to be a lot cleaner. Um, in fact, I I I would argue we might actually just fold it into your other titles. Can I can I share one more thought? I talked to our city manager today and given the importance of subdivisions and how they are a critical path and they're they are something the state's hyperfocused on and full of litigation baggage. Oh, sorry. Litigation. Yeah,

it's a grown-up over there. Um before we put a bow on it and call it good, we want to loop the city council in. Okay.

And um maybe have a third party legal review. Um, so we're going to go through each section throughout the code or each chapter um, as we've been doing and before we get to the next one and we just shut the lid on subdivisions, I think we either have a joint session with the city council and we talk through um, what is the result of this conversation and others, let them weigh in and then finalize this chapter before we get too far ahead of oursel. So, what I'm saying is if if we have to take a pause and spend a little bit more time on subdivisions to make sure that everyone clearly gets it, I think that's wise. Smart.

I like that.

Yeah. Do it now, not Yeah. at the very end. Brilliant. Okay. Um, running out of time fast, but uh, so we talked about definitions, we talked about subdivisions. Should you want to go in and and watch me delete tables and put them back in, uh, that's this bottom link right here. Uh that's pretty cool. Um and if you just want shortcuts to the uh flowcharts, but I will be changing those uh likely tomorrow. Um upcoming topics, uh powers and duties of planning commission is something we talked about previously and our direction was go out and look at how some other cities do it. See if there's other ideas that maybe you guys might want to incorporate or you know, oh my gosh, they got rid of that. Hallelujah. You know, we we're kind of in that process still in that. We don't have anything really solid to bring to you quite yet, but that's coming soon. We do have a copy of your bylaws that you guys have adopted internally, I guess, or however you want to describe it. We have that and so we're going to find a way to associate that with your actual code. Um, we just did that for another town. So, um, so that's good. Uh, and then I think I showed you those definitions as far as like um the illustrations and the flowcharts and that kind of thing. We're starting to sketch some of those out. That land use authority conversation we had makes so much sense if you just have a table. this kind of application. This is your uh initial review, your approval, and your appellet, you know, d and it's it's going to freak you out when you see that thing put together because you'll be saying, "Oh my gosh, we do a lot of stuff." It's really quite interesting to see how many different kinds of questions come to uh to the city. Uh and who gets to decide what. Um so we'll have that. Uh, one thing though, um, we do need to start because we are trying to be done with this. Um, like I say, before I retire, um, is a use table. Uh, did we look at this last? I can't remember if I showed you this. It's just a quick example. U much, much smaller town, but I I use it because it's there it is because I can fit it

onto one screen. Um, oops. These colors are the colors on their map. um you know so their residential is yellow and so forth and what they're saying is um for residential for example a bed and breakfast in the ROS zone no conditional in the OS20 absolutely not in A1 and it's conditional all across tried to talk them out of that anyway um we kind of want to do something similar for you guys the the problem is is their economy versus your all economy is oh my gosh you guys have like 25 or something. 27.

Yeah, you you guys got a ton of different zones and the uses are going for a million miles. So, we are still kind of looking for a clean way to do that. We still like this. Um, you guys are going to have something a little bit different. Um, we did one in late and that oh my gosh, that thing I think it breaks the internet every time somebody tries to look into it. But users like um applicants love love this. They like to know, hey, I was thinking of building a In-N-Out Burger or something and they can just look up restaurant and D, oh, this zone, where's the map, you know? It's really kind of nice to be able to just do that. Um, so we don't want to get away from it all together, but we don't really have any good ideas to show you quite yet. But just so you know, that's coming.

This is going to be huge. And it's very hu Yeah. You think definitions is cool? Yeah, that's this is going to make life easy for everybody. Um because right now uh our conditional uses are out of control. Yeah.

Um and so like subdivisions, I want to have a really good conversation about um what things we want to permit, what things we don't want to permit, where they're appropriate, where they're not appropriate, and limit conditional uses to we can't get to zero. I wish we could, but we want to limit them to the smallest number possible. The state adopted a rule last year that said that if you don't have a use, if someone wants to have a use that you don't have a definition for, then you have to basically find the closest use to it and then have a process for that approval. It's completely ridiculous

and it almost circumvents the whole thing anyway. But I think we can figure out a way to just be very prescriptive about uses. It will create a giant list of uses because we're going to have to think through lots of them. But a table is the best way to organize that.

It's got to be a table. And it is like you say, it's the other side of the stick you pick up when you as a city just decide we're going to dictate uses that we want and what we don't. You got to be fair to the applicant. So you got to say these are all the ones we say yes to and these are the ones we say no to. And the conditions I some of the folks on our team are really passionate about this, but they would say if you're going to say it's yes to a conditional use, put it in your head that it's kind of yes. like you're it's permitted but with a couple things like start thinking of it that way not oh maybe so but I'm never going to say yes to that. Does that make sense? Like your conditions have to be crystal clear. Well, as clear as you can make them in your code and it's like the path to get to yes is right there in the code. So you're you can still put conditional uses out there, but yeah, they're so problematic and it's legal fodder um for contention. You just don't want to do a whole lot of them if you can get away from it. You just say these are the ones we like. These are the ones we really don't like the ones if it has to be there. Yeah, but you got to make it work with A, B, and C. So, yeah, that is that is going to be huge. That is a ton of work. By the way, too, our team, um, the ones we're partnering with, they've already started on your, um, I call it the second file, sorry, your zones, and they're going through that right now and kind of collecting up their thoughts on, um, what you're currently telling the world as far as permitted and and prohibited uh, uses. They're kind of making a profile for you um, so you can kind of see what it looks like on the outside to be working in Riverdale. Um, so we I don't know if we can have that for your next meeting, but I'm hoping um because that conversation, it's a huge conversation, but we got to get into it or else this thing will never get done. So, um, just have that on a very close horizon as we do that work. We call it zone consolidation. That is one idea we're trying to figure out. Can you guys live without 27 zones? Maybe. The answer literally is maybe. I mean, it sounds like a lot. administratively it feels like a lot but

if the goal and the vision can only be hit with that number of zones then that's what you're going to work with. So, we're going to look at as we go through your uses. If we find two zones that just feel really really similar, we're going to not in the next meeting, but in a future meeting, we're going to come to you and say, "Let's talk about why you have these two things. We think they're the same." Like, you could make a a new version. Um, these guys get to have a kid. No, that's not a good one. You know what I'm saying? Okay. All right. All right. Tried to get done by 8. So, uh, thanks for letting me take more of your time. Um, I'll be back. Your next one's a work session in the first part of October. Is that true? Three weeks. Yep. Three weeks from today. Three week. Yeah, that's right. We got an extra week in there. So, our next meeting, we might have something really fun for you then if we have an extra week to put it together.

Waiting for three weeks. We'll get you guys the things on time this time. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, folks. Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is our comments portion. Um, any comments from the planning commission or city staff? I make a motion that we adjourn. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Any opposed?

I asked, you had to. You had to. You did great. Good job. Thank you, sir. feel like I'm back in college again. This is having to study. Yeah. Making